Tuesday, June 30, 2015

A gun control scheme was thwarted on Tuesday by the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee after Democrats tried to take advantage of a deranged man’s hate crime in Charleston, South Carolina, last week. Only 19 members voted for an amendment filed by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) that would have given the Centers for Disease Control the authority to prescribe “gun violence” remedies compared to 32 against.

Lowey claimed, “This is not about a gun registry. There is no gun confiscation. There is absolutely no harm to the Second Amendment. This is about research. My amendment is about research, nothing more.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) likewise noted, “The notion that somehow research is our enemy is just wrong-headed. And for people to chip away at our ability to investigate efforts that are about public health and prevention, is wrong-headed. There is no reason not to fund this research.”

In truth, the agency is not banned from conducting said research; what it can’t do is suggest strategies (read: gun control proposals) for curtailing violence involving firearms. And that’s the point of contention for Democrats. If the CDC can somehow pin the weapon as the disease — a ludicrous suggestion in itself — the government then has even more authority to restrict gun rights. It’s just one of the many reasons why expanding background checks is a dangerous proposition.

David Frum, in an article published in the Atlantic on 23 May, takes considerable liberties with facts and the truth. The article is under the "politics" section, so it should be a bit more concerned with facts than a typical opinion piece. But disarmists seldom let reality interfere with their fantasies. Frum makes a number of assertions as fact that are not true. He selectively ignores other facts that invalidate his thesis. Here are some of the more egregious errors.

He claims that mass killing with firearms is a distinctly American phenomena. That is simply false, an echoing of President Obama's sentiment. It is debunked here by politifact:

The data shows that it clearly happens in other countries, and in at
least three of them, there’s evidence that the rate of killings in
mass-shooting events occurred at a higher per-capita rate than in the
United States between 2000 and 2014. The only partial support for
Obama’s claim is that the per-capita gun-incident fatality rate in the
United States does rank in the top one-third of the list of 11 countries
studied. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False.

Then Frum compounds the error by selecting only certain countries to compare mass shootings, managing to exclude those who have had recent mass shootings and ignoring mass shootings in the countries that he mentions. Frum writes:

The fact that Americans are regularly gunned down in
large numbers by lone gunmen—and that Britons, Germans, French,
Italians, Canadians, Japanese, Australians, New Zealanders, South
Koreans, Danes, Swiss, Poles, and Spaniards are not—is just one of those
unfathomable mysteries, like the fate of the crew of the Mary Celeste.

Frum conveniently ignores Norway and Finland, which Politifact notes had more mass shooting per capita than the United States in the last 15 years. He ignores the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, while including the Ft. Hood attack in the United States. He includes Switzerland, which has a higher rate per capita than the United States, as per Politifact. He may be forgiven for not including the mass shooting in Tunisia shortly after his article was written, where a single gunman, in a country with extremely strict gun control, killed 38 or more before he was stopped. Still, the incident serves to invalidate his "fact".

Frum casually mentions that the crime rate in the U.S. has declined enormously in the last 20 years, yet fails to mention that the number of guns in the United States increased by 50% over the same period.

Then he tells this whopper:

As guns proliferate
(perhaps 270 million of them in the United States comparted to just 9.5
million in Canada)—and as handguns displace hunting pieces—so do gun
accidents and suicides.

It simply is not true. Fatal gun accidents have dropped to the lowest level in about a hundred years in the United States, while the number of guns per capita have at least tripled and the population tripled as well. Here is confirmation from politifact.com, hardly a conservative site:

According to council data, the total number of unintentional deaths from
firearms sank to 554 in 2009 -- easily the lowest of any year back to
1903.

In fact, it took from 1903 all the way until 1997 for the number of
unintentional gunfire deaths to drop below 1,000. The all-time highs
came in 1929 and 1930, when the number of such deaths reached 3,200 for
two consecutive years.

This decline is all the more striking considering the increase in
population over this period. In 1904, there were 3.4 unintentional
firearm deaths per 100,000 people. By 2009, that rate had fallen to 0.2
deaths per 100,000 in people.

However, the data for unintentional gun deaths ticked up modestly in 2010, to 606, and then fell slightly to 600 in 2011.

Certainly, in the United States, people, particularly older white men, tend to commit suicide with guns. But as one of many methods available, it is unlikely to change with any of the modifications that Frum suggests. It is simply irrelevant. Countries with extremely restrictive gun control laws still manage to have suicide rates much higher than the United States.

Frum then directs a calumny at gun dealers. He notes that of guns that are traced, 57 percent found at crime scenes come from 1 percent of gun dealers. I believe that is a true, if misleading statement. Then he jumps to this:

By holding these rogue gun dealers to account, it might
be possible to significantly diminish the flow of guns into criminal
hands. Instead, Congress chose to protect rogue gun dealers from
scrutiny and sanction. In 2003, Congress passed
a law forbidding government agencies to disclose tracing data that
might link a particular dealer to a criminal purchaser. It’s hard to
hold gun dealers responsible for selling to unlawful buyers if nobody is
allowed to know where an unlawful buyer purchased his weapons.

But, these are not "rogue gun dealers". These dealers just happen to be the ones at a the statistical conflation of two events. They are very large gun dealers who operate in close proximity to high crime areas. Consequently, they sell lots of guns, and a percentage ends up at crime scenes. Many are stolen from the people they sell to. If a stolen gun is recovered, it counts as a "gun at a crime scene". Some are bought by undetectable straw purchasers for sale to criminals. If the dealer refused to sell to likely criminals based on demographics (young, male, and black), they would be accused of racism and discrimination. Being a large dealer near a high crime area is what produces the statistical artefact. These dealers are repeatedly investigated by the ATF. They keep meticulous records. They have to, or they would be shut down.

Frum is simply telling an untruth when he says "nobody is
allowed to know where an unlawful buyer purchased his weapons" The implication is, that nobody is allowed to know, but that is false. Any legitimate investigation by law enforcement is allowed to know, and can find out those facts on particular cases.

Frum cites the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case as an example of a "good guy with a gun" who "tracked and killed Trayvon Martin". It is irresponsible and incendiary to make that claim when exhaustive investigation and a court trial all concluded that Zimmerman was fully justified in protecting his life from the attack by Trayvon Martin.

Frum trots out the usual disarmist prescriptions, often described as "first steps" or "common sense". Some, such as requiring insurance to exercise a constitutional right, are clear infringements meant to chill the exercise of that right. Other infringements, such as "universal background checks", are designed as stepping stones to more stringent restrictions. Legislation that would have allowed for "universal background checks", without collecting data that could be used for a gun registration system, was opposed by proponents of the "background checks".

In order to make these policies plausible, he has to trot out the disinformation and misdirection shown above.

Frum is allowed his fantasies and false assumptions about reality, but he is not allowed to fabricate his own facts.

An essay appearing in today’s edition of The Week, authored by Jeb Golinkin, so clearly explains the backbone of the Second Amendment movement in this country that anyone but a closed-minded gun prohibitionist should understand why millions of citizens so zealously defend their right to keep and bear arms.

It’s not that Golinkin comes across as a hardcore right to keep and bear arms absolutist (he doesn't); he alludes in the third paragraph to another article, written earlier this week by David Frum, that no hardcore gun rights activist is going to like at all. But Golinkin’s piece does sum up why millions of Americans passionately resist and revile any erosion of their fundamental civil right.

“The gun rights movement is about individual freedom and American individualism,” Golinkin writes. “These are people who believe in their right and obligation to control their own fate by carrying a firearm to protect themselves and those around them, even if that might disadvantage those who choose not to.

Today, we learn that two felons in Oregon were arrested and charged
with illegally possessing firearms, one of which deputies believe was 3D
printed. Nolan DeBell, 42, and Joshua Holloway, 27, were arrested three
weeks ago on June 9 when deputies found a large number of
illegally-modified and stolen firearms at their house in Chiloquin,
Oregon. One of the weapons that was seized was an AR-15 assault rifle,
which included a lower receiver that investigators now believe had been
3D printed. The lower receiver is of course a part of the gun that
contains the firing mechanism, and is basically what makes the gun
“work”.

Comedian Jim Jefferies has been making a bit of a splash in the United States by putting together a misleading rant against the right to bear arms in the U.S. Jefferies does not want women to have guns. He says that he does not want anyone to have guns, but then he is much bigger and stronger than most women, so perhaps he does not mind being disarmed, as long as women are disarmed as well. A general prohibition on guns always favors those who are bigger, stronger and younger.

Jefferies does not just rant about guns, he rants about women. That is the gist of this article from Australia about one of his comedy routines. From smh.com:

I had no idea that Jefferies, whose show is listed as one of the top 10 acts to see in this year's Melbourne International Comedy Festival, was such a misogynist.

(snip)

Violence against women exists on a spectrum: at one end there are
misogynist attitudes, which Jefferies champions. His jokes against women
were delivered with passion and conviction, and sections of the crowd
consumed them like hungry wolves. These jokes made me feel uncomfortable
and angry because they are being told against the backdrop of a society
that systematically denigrates women.

It is has become a stereotype that those who want others disarmed are motivated by fear of their own ability to control themselves. Others have said that disarmists fear the idea of an armed victim.

The Australian reviewer is not the only one to see the nasty nature of Jeffries misogyny. From thequardian.com:

There's nothing wrong, of course, with off-colour comedy. But tonight, Jefferies isn't good enough to redeem the standard-issue Madeleine McCann gags and graphic misogyny. A Jerry Sadowitz or Doug Stanhope creates a persona to contextualise those jokes, or offsets the cynicism with linguistic or comic ability. Jefferies is a bland phrase-maker and a so-so joke-writer, who says of one "fat" admirer, "She was the type of girl who might have a personality, but – who cares?", then pauses for a laugh.

The image of Jeffries as an angry misogynist makes his passionate desire to disarm women more easily understandable.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Many of you may have read or viewed disturbing media reports over the past week on how Victorian Police are “concerned” about a new “rapid fire” lever action shotgun about to be released for sale in Australia. As expected these reports have been followed by calls in the media and by various “experts” and officials for a rethink (read new gun grab) on Australian gun laws.

At Shooters Union we have been aware of a disturbing trend appearing over the past year. First a rumour here and a dropped word there from someone in a meeting. We were hesitant to bring it to our members because, to be honest, every single official that was approached denied there were any plans afoot to change legislation regarding certain types of firearms.

OOPS, now it appears these same people are coming out from their dark little corners because they think a modern lever action shotgun can be used to make the public fearful enough to push even more non-effective restrictions on you, the legitimate law-abiding firearm user.

In a nutshell, this is what we have been hearing over the past year or so:

Various state police officials in several states, have been working together with a shadowy group that operates under the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Office (Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group) on various firearm related issues and one that has been repeatedly raised has been the concept of heavily restricting “Manually Operated Rapid Fire Weapons” MORFW (surely only a government department could even imagine such a title).

MORFW’s include the following:

* All lever action firearms (rifle/shotgun)

* ALL pump rifles (pump action shotguns already heavily restricted)

* Straight pull bolt action rifles with detachable magazinesThe basic proposal is that MORFW’s should be reclassified as Category C firearms, as is currently done for self loading rimfire rifles and shotguns and pump action shotguns. This means that 95% of shooters could not own or use them!

BUT, here is the good news. To accomplish this the Federal government would have to get ALL Australian state governments to agree to change their legislation.This will be hard to do as most state governments have ZERO interest in changing these laws and going through all the massive political fight that will come with such proposals (I am hoping you are in the fight right alongside us).

So that is exactly why you are now seeing very carefully dropped articles in media across the country about the new “demon shotgun” that can fire so rapidly and is “deadly” (I guess other 12 gauge shotguns are not deadly??). The people pushing for these outrageous changes need a focus, something to try and gain some support and the lever action shotgun has been picked as the new poster child for “bad gun”.

Leaving aside the inherent idiocy of the whole “good” gun “bad” gun concept we live with in Australia, this new move against what amounts to probably 30-40% of all legally owned firearms is mind numbing.

As firearm owners we need to be united in opposing this concept totally, utterly and completely.

Some facts:

* Lever Action Shotguns have been around since the 1880s, and newmodels have been selling well in Australia for a number of years without problems.

* Lever action rifles are the second most popular action type in Australia and have been selling here since the 1870s.

* All firearms are safe in the right hands.

You can write or talk to your local MPs and let them know your feelings on the issue. The only way these laws will get through is if you and your shooting friends say nothing and do nothing.

Chicken Express, located at 2 Warnock Springs Rd in Magnolia, Arkansas, is offering a free meal to people who present a concealed handgun license at their location on July 4th, 2015. From facebook.com:

On Saturday July 4th we will be giving a FREE #1 combo to anyone with a Conceal Handgun License. This will be DINE IN ONLY.

You must have your License with you! We hope everyone has a happy and safe 4th of July!

There have been a number of other businesses that welcome both the open and concealed carry of firearms and offer promotions based on the same. There are many advantages to such an offer.

First is the attraction of a prosperous, well educated, and responsible clientèle. People who have concealed carry permits or CHLs, whatever the local idiom many be, have been shown to be all of the above. They are better educated, more prosperous, and are more responsible than the general population. They are precisely the type of customer that a business would want to attract and keep.

Secondly, there is the increase in store security. It takes an especially stupid criminal to decide to attempt a robbery at a place that is openly attracting legally armed citizens. It may still happen. Many criminals are stupid, many are functionally illiterate, and many are high on drugs or alcohol or a combination when they commit their crimes. But just as you seldom see cop bars or gun stores as the victims of robberies, there is a clear deterrent effect.

The market will favor signs such as the one above over the dwindling number of "gun free zone" signs.

GROVELAND — Police said they will not file charges against a man accused of punching his wife in the eye before she shot him three times earlier this month.

According to an arrest affidavit, 42-year-old Shalom Toney told detectives she initially left the couple’s Groveland home on June 8 after her 48-year-old husband, Willie, punched her in the eye during a physical altercation. She said when she returned to pick up her children, Willie charged at her with a knife, so she reached under a chair for a hidden gun and shot him.

Anderson County Coroner Don McCown said it appears Bratcher went to the home in, forced his way inside and was asked to leave. He and a woman in the home got into a physical altercation before the woman shot him with a .38 caliber handgun.

Lt. Sheila Cole, with the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office, said investigators believe that the shooting was a case of self-defense.More Here

Sunday, June 28, 2015

The data for these numbers has been gathered from two sources. From 1945 to 1987, the data was taken from "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" by Gary Kleck, Table 2.1. The methodology used by Kleck was applied to the figures obtained from the ATF for later years. The number shown is the cumulative addition of domestic manufacture plus imports minus exports. This does not count guns shipped to the U.S. military. The figures are rounded to the nearest million.

Kleck attributes the 1945 - 1968 numbers to Newton and Zimring, which includes the calculation of the 1945 number of modern guns added to the stock from 1899 to 1945. Firearms manufactured before 1899 are not included. The starting figure in 1945 is 47 million; at the end of 2012, it is 347 million, an increase of 300 million in 67 years, a six fold increase in the stock. The year 2013 is shown on the end of the chart as a place holder so that the figure 347 will be visible for 2012. Numbers for 2013 were not available at the time of publication.

The numbers do not account for reduction of the gun stock due to wear and tear, loss, destruction or illegal exportation; or increases of the stock from illegal importation, individual or illegal manufacture, or acquisition from military sources.

The U.S. population increased from 133 million in 1945 to 313 million in 2012, a 135% increase in population, or over a 200% increase in the number of guns per capita. Guns per capita rose from .35 in 1945, to 1.1 guns per capita in 2012.

In his address to the nation, Obama claimed that, “We as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.”

But Obama overlooks Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik used a gun to kill 67 people and wound 110 others. Still others were killed by bombs that Breivik detonated. Three of the six worst K-12 school shootings ever have occurred in Europe. Germany saw two of these — one in 2002 at Erfurt and another in 2009 at Winnenden. The combined death toll was 34. France and Belgium have both faced multiple terrorist attacks over the past year.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

On March 5th, 1991, a former police officer and firearm instructor named James Fendry received a call from a woman. Her name was Bonnie. She had a restraining order against her husband. She was desperate to get a gun to protect herself. The Instructor told her that Wisconsin had a 48 hour waiting period. The next day, Bonnie Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her estranged husband, who then committed suicide.

The address in the map above is where Bonnie and her children lived. The red
arrow, at the bottom, is the reported location for James Fendry, the former policeman and firearms instructor, in 1991,
when the call was reported.

After the murders, Fendry reported the conversation, which then became an example of how waiting periods can be counterproductive by denying people the ability to defend themselves. The account became national and has been included in the debate about waiting periods and self defense. It is included in web pages such as this one that shows how waiting periods for handguns have costs. The existing research shows that waiting periods do not have a measurable effect in preventing crime.

Bonnie Elmasri's brother, a few months after the murders, contended that his sister would never contact anyone about buying a gun, that she knew nothing about guns, and would never buy one. Therefore, he contends, the story must be false. Bonnie and her children are dead. They cannot be questioned. Phone records of the time are gone, and did not include the digital records of today, so we can never prove that Bonnie called Fendry, a prominent instructor who headed up a state gun organization.

Bonnie Elmasri and her children lived at 2454 N. Lefeber Ave in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. That is only 15 miles from Fendry, whose organization has a (414) area code, so it would have been a local call. Fendry had been quoted in an AP story about gun control in a Milwaukee paper, on February 11th, less than a month before the murders. From the journaltimes.com:

"When you pass a gun law, the criminal realizes an honest person
is less likely to have a gun or use a gun," said Fendry, a former
police officer. "Locally, statewide and nationally, people who
focus on gun control don't care about crime control."

How many women named Bonnie had restraining orders against their husband in the local area is not known.

The Daily Beast claims that the brother's account must be the correct one. But desperate people are known to step outside of their comfort zones. It seems highly unlikely that Fendry would just make the story up. The waiting period bill had been passed, 15 years earlier. There was no bill pending in the legislature to repeal the waiting period in 1991. We cannot prove that Bonnie Elmasri made the call. Her brother does not believe that she did. That does not make the assertion a lie or false. From the dailybeast.com:

A shameful falsehood resides at the heart of the gun de-control bill that Gov. Scott Walker signed on Wednesday even as the nation still reeled from the reality of the nine innocents shot to death in a Charleston church.

In the law, there is the concept of "preponderance of the evidence". That is, if there is a little more evidence on one side than the other, you accept the side with the little more evidence, in civil cases.

This is not a civil case, it is not a court of law. We have two competing claims. Which is more believable? That a desperate woman, not knowledgeable about guns, would reach out to prominent gun instructor who is a former policeman, who had been recently featured in the newspapers defending the right to self defense; or that a grief stricken brother can be certain that the desperate sister would never do such a thing?

I do not think either claim would be enough to put someone in jail, but I think a jury would find the phone call likely to have come from Bonnie Elmasri, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Friday, June 26, 2015

A Pleasant Grove homeowner will not face criminal charges for shooting and killing a man who tried to force his way into his townhouse.

The Plesant Grove Police Department confirmed Monday that the Utah County Attorney's Office decided last month that the homeowner was justified in his use of force against 24-year-old Christian Chichia.

Police confirmed that Chichia was likely intoxicated and confused about where he was when he tried to break in on May 3.

The Pope is just another Leftist -- preaching the characteristic: "Do as I say, not as I do"

POPE FRANCIS had harsh words for the arms industry on Sunday, condemning as "two-faced" those who claim to be Christian while manufacturing weapons or investing in companies that produce them. "It is hypocritical to talk about peace and make weapons," the pope told an audience of young people in Turin. "Doing one thing and saying another. What hypocrisy!"

It's not the first time Francis has blasted the defense industry. In May, he denounced the arms business as an "industry of death," run by people who "don't want peace" because "they make more money from war." In February, he labeled weapons dealers "merchants of death" and blamed them for "furthering a cycle of hate, fratricide, and violence."

So sweeping a calumny would be unworthy coming from anyone; from a moral teacher as prominent as the Bishop of Rome, it is inexcusable. Of course there are hypocrites and charlatans in the arms trade, just as there are hypocrites and charlatans in all professions. But to smear everyone in the weapons business as unethical and anti-peace is sheer demagoguery.

I wouldn't presume to instruct the pope in theology, but if Francis really means to execrate any commerce in weapons, he goes farther than even Jesus did. "Let him who has a purse take it and also a bag," Jesus instructs his apostles in the Gospel of Luke, "and let him who has no sword sell his garment and buy one." In both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, Saint Adrian of Nicomedia has long been honored as the patron saint of arms dealers. There is room for good Christians, the church seems to believe, even in the weapons business.

And would the pope want it any other way? Would the world be better off if the industries that make weapons, ammunition, and military equipment didn't employ men and women who aspire to live ethically? The Vatican itself is defended by a military force — the Swiss Guard — that is well-supplied with sophisticated firepower, including assault rifles and submachine guns. When Francis slams weapons-makers and firearms-sellers as "hypocrites" and "merchants of death," does he include those who provide the guns that keep him and the papal offices safe?

In Isaiah's messianic vision of a world in which universal peace and goodness reigns, human beings will "beat their swords into plowshares / And their spears into pruning hooks." But until that utopia arrives, there is nothing moral about pacifism. In the here and now, evil exists and the decent must fight it. And unless they are to fight unarmed, they will need the tools of violence.

The pope knows only too well what happens when good people — or good nations — aren't willing to fight the world's monsters with every available weapon.

At the very same rally in Turin in which he excoriated those who make and sell munitions, Francis retroactively decried the failure of the Western democracies to do more to stop the Nazi genocide and Stalin's terror. "The great powers had photographs of the railway routes that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, Roma, homosexuals, everybody," he said. "Tell me, then: Why did they not bomb them?"

Does the pontiff hear his own words? He laments the failure to bomb the rail lines and save millions of lives. Who would have made those bombs? Who would have made the bombers to deliver them? Who made the guns and tanks and missiles that did, in the end, defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Who supplied the arms that ended the slave trade and eradicated piracy? Were all of them conniving merchants of death?

No, Pope Francis, it is not hypocritical to talk about peace and make weapons. For if the peaceable cannot defend themselves, they will have no peace. "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition," Americans sang during World War II. A moral world requires moral violence, and the wisdom to know when to use it.

In this video that is said to be from Brazil, a motorcycle officer is involved in a chase after two people on another motorcycle. The passenger on the motorcycle being chased throws a spare helmet at the pursuing officer. We do not know the backstory, but the motorcycle being chased crashes into a pole, perhaps a power pole. The officer is able to slow down, stops his bike feet from the crashed cyclists, draws a pistol, and opens fire on them. He appears to shoot at least four times.

It is difficult to shoot from a motorcycle if you are the only rider. I note that the officer draws and fires his pistol with his left hand, which normally controls the clutch, while the right hand controls the throttle. He may have put the motorcycle into neutral before letting go of the clutch, or there may be special controls on the police motor cycles.

Notice that the lettering in the caption is
reversed. I wonder if the images are reversed as well. If so, the
motorcycle cop could be shooting with his right hand, which would make
more sense, as his left could hold in the clutch while his right foot
could work the rear brake.

Yes, the images are reversed. Here is the video on Youtube. It is a bit longer. It appears that the motorcycle cop shoots the passenger during the chase, and that is why the pursued motorcycle crashes.

The bear was roughly 9 feet tall and started its charge at about 20 yards away. The man shot the bear by the time it moved half that distance, Svoboda said.

"It all happened in really tight quarters," he said. "He shot at it five times before it finally stopped and then once it was on the ground, it was still moving. So he shot it one more time and then it died."

Alaska State Troopers said the shooting occurred near a home off Sharatin Road in the city of Kodiak. Troopers identified the man who shot and killed the bear as Hamilton Long, 49. Fish and Game received the bear hide and skull.

"Hamilton shot and killed the bear in defense of his life at close range," troopers said.

Svoboda said he wanted to emphasize that "this particular individual did everything right."

On June 25th, 2015, the majority of Supreme Court Justices, lead by Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that what the law says does not matter. What matters is what the Justices want the law to say.

This is an important break down in the rule of law. We have seen it before from the Supreme Court, particularly from the Warren Court, and during the Roosevelt revolution of the 1930's and on. There seemed to be a brief period in the early 2000s when the Court might actually follow the law of the land. This was labelled by the left as a "radically conservative court" but it was merely a slight tendency to follow law and truth, instead of rubber stamping "progressive" ideology.

The decision sheds light on why the Court has not accepted any direct Second Amendment cases since McDonald. Both sides are afraid that a wavering Justice, typically Justice Kennedy, will vote against them. The Constitutional side does not want a Supreme Court ruling that guts Heller and McDonald; the "progressive" side does not want a ruling that confirms and expands them. It is even possible that a Justice does not want to have to yield to pressure from the Obama Administration, so avoiding a case becomes the easier choice.

It is obvious that the Court, similar to what happened in Venezuela, has been turned to the side of the administration. Decisions that are in direct opposition to the law are found for the administration when enough pressure is brought to bear. The Court explicitly ruled that it had to find the law Constitutional to avoid the law becoming unworkable. In other words, they subverted the rule of law in order to support the current administration.

The only hope for a return to Constitutional restraints is an end to the current administration. That hope presupposes that whatever pressure has been brought will cease when this administration ends.

It is not a hope that a future can be built upon. After the SCOTUSCare decision, I have no real belief that we can depend on the Supreme Court to protect Second Amendment rights. The Obama administration is in full attack mode against the Second Amendment. It will bring whatever pressure it can against the Justices to insure that they rule the way that it wishes, in any Second Amendment case.

All is not lost.

The Supreme Court failed to protect the Second Amendment from 1935 through 2005. It only started to protect the Second Amendment because Second Amendment activists organized and won legislative battles, educated greater and greater numbers of the public, and pushed the Court to rule properly. That dynamic has not changed, but the Supreme Court has now shown that it cannot be relied on to follow the rule of law while this administration has all the power of the Government at its disposal.

Second Amendment activists will have to use their existing organizations, communications ability, and all their remaining protections under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to hold on to the restoration of freedoms that have been won in the last 20 years. Legislatively, they may be able to do more.

They can win back, in State and Federal legislatures, what the Courts are refusing to protect. The Obama administration will not be in power forever. There will be a backlash. It may happen that a Justice or Justices on the Supreme Court will find the ability to act ethically after the abuses of this administration end.

But, for the next year and a half, do not expect the Supreme Court to protect Second Amendment rights. Second Amendment supporters should be glad that the Court has not taken important Second Amendment cases. If my analysis is correct, the next year and a half is a very dangerous time for the Second Amendment to be heard in the Supreme Court.

The victim told police he was in his home when he heard a noise in the
garage and went to go investigate and grabbed his .22 revolver gun as he
walked out. He said he found one man inside his garage talking to
another man located outside the garage, authorities said.

According to officials, no one was home when the suspect broke in to the Acorn Drive residence through a garage window, but the homeowner was alerted and immediately responded. They say the homeowner fired one shot during an altercation. It’s not known if the suspect was hit.

When Hunnicutt encountered the son in the downstairs area of the home, a verbal and eventually physical altercation broke out. Hunnicutt reportedly armed himself with a knife from the kitchen, and as the brawl began to escalate the son shot Hunnicutt with a handgun belonging to the homeowners.

Hunnicutt was reportedly shot through one wrist and also suffered a non-penetrating wound to his head. He was taken to Mary Washington Hospital to be treated for his injuries.

The campers -- who had dogs with them -- said the small, "scruffy" bear continued to come back and eat food outside their tent, and they felt threatened. The man then fired a shot with a .308 rifle at the bear to scare it off while it was about 15 yards away.

Churchill said rangers do not believe the bear was hit, as there was no blood trail.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

A Kodiak homeowner shot and killed a 9-foot-tall bear on his lawn after it charged him. The Kodiak Daily Mirror reports Tuesday Hamilton Long fired six rounds at the 1,000-pound bear. Alaska State Troopers Kodiak Post supervisor Sgt. Eric Olsen says Long emptied the cylinder of his .44 Magnum revolver. He says an investigator determined Long acted in self-defense.

A male was following another male in their respective vehicles as they left work. The male pulled up alongside the suspect's vehicle at two different stop lights and threatened him both times. As the threatened male attempted to drive away from the other vehicle, the first male intentionally steered his vehicle into the path of the other man's vehicle and struck it. The male then got out of his vehicle and, as he approached the disabled vehicle, the male inside the vehicle pulled out a pistol and fatally shot the approaching male.

The woman, who police say is in her 70's, tells police that she observed the suspect walking down her drive way. He knocked on the door and when she didn't answer, he went around back and broke into her home using a rock.

Police tell 21 News, that the woman grabbed a gun and went into the bathroom. As the suspect made his way through the house, the woman stepped out and fired at him.

Citing insufficient evidence and an uncooperative witness, prosecutors opted to dismiss charges Monday against a San Carlos man accused of shooting his son earlier this year.

Alan Fisher, a 65-year-old retired obstetrician, was facing attempted murder and assault charges after allegedly getting into an argument with his 33-year-old son, then shooting him in the neck and abdomen April 22.

Fisher pleaded not guilty to the charges while claiming he was defending himself against his son who was armed with a knife. Fisher lived with his son and wife at their Crestview Drive home, according to prosecutors. More Here

Police spokeswoman Jennifer Wardlow said Monday that officers are continuing to investigate the Friday shooting at attorney Jay Silvernail's home in Oklahoma City.

Silvernail shot 54-year-old client David Scott Smith, who was at Silvernail's home to pick up unspecified items. Police say Smith became upset with Silvernail and attacked him before the shooting.More Here

A struggle ensued and the woman was stabbed in the hand. During the struggle, according to the police report, the woman was able to retrieve a firearm and fired a shot at the man killing him. The woman sustained a cut to the hand and bruising to her body. She refused medical treatment at the scene.

In
an audacious display of cherry-picking, Lott argues that there were
“more guns” between 1977 to 1992 by choosing to examine two seemingly
arbitrary surveys on gun ownership, and then sloppily applying a formula
he devised to correct for survey limitations. Since 1959, however,
there have been at least 86 surveys examining gun ownership, and none of
them show any clear trend establishing a rise in gun ownership.
Differences between surveys appear to be dependent almost entirely on
sampling errors, question wordings, and people’s willingness to answer
questions honestly.

My
paper with Mustard as well as my book looked at all the crime data
available when those pieces were written and I updated that data with
each successive updated edition of my book.

On my recent vacation to Meteor Crater and environs, I stopped at the rest areas along the way to check and see if the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) had done its job. They needed to replace old signs that illegally banned guns in the rest areas. When other travellers were available, I had them take my picture for use in this and future articles. After the pretty young woman holding the child took my picture, I asked if I could take hers. She was happy to pose for me.

Here is the picture she took of me at Painted Cliffs. I asked her to be sure that the Glock was prominently displayed.

No one had any problem taking my picture with the openly carried pistol. I asked men, women, white and black, and no one had a problem. They smiled and happily helped out. The idea that the public is terrified of openly carried weapons is a media produced mythology that has been promoted by Bloomberg and his paid groups. If openly carried weapons do not terrify the population, then most of their emotional argument collapses.

A black man took my picture at the South Meteor Crater Rest Area. It is one of the best that my volunteers took. I wonder if he is a photographer. His wife or female companion did not have a problem with it. I checked the "rules" sign, as this is where one of the old signs was posted last year.

A new sign was in place. There is no ban on the exercise of the Second Amendment on this side. Second Amendment supporters have made progress in restoring Constitutional rights that had been eroded.

I should have had the volunteer at Sentinel zoom in a little, but you can still see the Glock in the cross draw position.

Cross draw carry works for travel in a car, because the seat belt does not interfere with the draw. In the cross draw position, you can use either hand to draw the pistol. The pistol is protected from any shenanigans on the part of a person in the passenger seat.

The cross draw position was common in the 1850's and 1860's, according to Phil Spangenberger, in "Frontier Gunleather", an article in "Guns of the Gunfighters", published 1975. It allowed for an easy draw while seated, and on horse back.

I will have a report on a rest stop sign in New Mexico in a later article.

In a podcast with far left comedian Marc Maron, President Obama put forward a typical "first step" toward further infringement of Second Amendment rights. Building on the existing, ineffective background check system, President Obama posited these "standards". From the patriotpost.us:

“The question is just, is there a way of accommodating that legitimate
set of [hunting and sporting] traditions with some common-sense stuff
that prevents a 21-year-old who’s angry about something — or confused
about something, or is racist, or is deranged — from going into a gun
store, and suddenly he’s packing and can do enormous harm?”

Others have noted that these are not real standards, simply emotional labels that would allow someone to use their political power to deny some people their constitutional rights. This is a favorite tactic of statists,. They do not wish the rule of law, they wish the rule of man.

What I find fascinating about President Obama's "standards" are that they appear to be pure projection. Other than the age, which seems unlikely to be upheld by any court (but courts only rarely hold this administration in check), all of the reasons for preventing a person from owning a gun could apply directly to President Obama. Let's see:

"angry about something" Check. When hasn't the President been angry about something?

"confused about something" Check. This President is confused about nearly everything, at least he seems so from his speeches.

"racist" Check. This is the most racist President that I have ever seen. Consider his "typical white woman" remarks about his own grandmother, his inserting of race into every policy issue, his jumping to the side of the black person before any facts are know about any particular incident.

"deranged" Uncertain, many have claimed that President Obama is a narcissist, but many others believe that what appears to be insane may simply be the rational enactment of what he really wants. But this restriction does not really matter, because it is already U.S. law.

President Obama, by his own words has shown that he believes that he should never be trusted with owning a gun, because "suddenly he’s packing and can do enormous harm”

The potential to do harm by owning a gun is minuscule compared the potential to do harm by owning the Presidency.

We have been seeing that harm for the past seven years. The economy is in shambles, the national debt has increased by 70%, race relations are at their lowest point in forty years, and war is breaking out in Europe and much of the Middle East and Africa due to this President's policies.

I would like to see the President apply his own standards to his own conduct, but he never has, and he never will. Being the first black President means never having to answer to anyone. Rationality, consistency, or logic have never applied to President Obama.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Barack Obama wants you to believe that the horrific murders in Charleston last week happened because his gun control agenda has been thwarted. In a new interview — part of a comedian’s somehow appropriately titled podcast “WTF With Marc Maron” — Obama blamed the NRA. “Unfortunately, the grip of the NRA on Congress is extremely strong,” he said. “I don’t foresee any legislative action being taken by this Congress.”

Fortunately, the Second Amendment, which the NRA defends, still holds sway with enough members of Congress to stop Obama’s agenda.

Of course, he trotted out his usual trope about how he concedes “we have to be respectful” of the traditions of “hunting and sportsmanship around firearms,” neither of which have much to do with our rights.

But his most worrisome statement was on the standards for background checks, which the Charleston murderer passed. Obama wants those background checks to be even tougher to pass. How tough? Obama asked, “The question is just, is there a way of accommodating that legitimate set of [hunting and sporting] traditions with some common-sense stuff that prevents a 21-year-old who’s angry about something — or confused about something, or is racist, or is deranged — from going into a gun store, and suddenly he’s packing and can do enormous harm?”

So now the standard is whether someone is merely angry, confused or racist? Who gets to decide that? If it’s Obama, no Republican would ever be permitted to purchase a gun.

District Attorney Ed (the barbarian) Berberian was slapped down by another judge in the Dr. Simon self defense shooting case. The shooting occurred in Marin County, an environment notoriously hostile to the Second Amendment.

Judge Andrew Sweet dismissed “in its entirety” a grand jury indictment lodged against Dr. James Simon, saying District Attorney Ed Berberian “made an inappropriate presentation to the grand jury” that failed to tell jurors relevant details about the case, or told them details that had no relevance at all. The result, said Sweet, was “substantial prejudice.”

Had Berberian proceeded appropriately, “it is reasonably probable that the grand jury would not have indicted the defendant,” Sweet said. “There’s a lot of evidence to establish that the defendant acted in self defense,” and little to suggest otherwise, Sweet observed.

This is the second time that a judge has dismissed the charges in the case. In the first preliminary hearing on January 7th, Judge Kelly Simons dismissed the charges, ruling there was insufficient evidence to justify a trial. The man who was shot, retired mortgage broker William Osenton, had difficulty testifying at the preliminary hearing, saying he remembered little. From marinij.com:

Osenton, who was not charged, has not explained why he followed the
Simons into their driveway. At the preliminary hearing, he testified
that he remembered “almost nothing of that day.”

During the Grand Jury testimony, where there was no cross examination or rebuttal, Osenton's memory cleared up. He told the Grand jury he had put "his hands up in the air", and asked the Doctor not to shoot him.

DA Berberian has a history of aggressive opposition to Second Amendment rights. Even though the Doctor's 50 firearms were legally owned under the highly restrictive California laws, Berberian insisted that having so many was inappropriate for the community, and was an important factor in prosecuting the case. Most of the guns were WWII collectibles and hunting arms.

I do not think that Berberian will get another chance to prosecute Dr. Simon. He has had two, and I do not see any other options.

A DA can keep convening grand juries until he obtains an indictment, such as happened to Tom Delay, the former Republican House Leader. In that case, a Democrat DA in Austin convened three Grand Juries to get an indictment against the effective Republican leader.

Delay was eventually vindicated, after being forced out of Congress. Delay was not able to avail himself of all legal defenses while in Congress, because of House rules.

DA Berberian has already used the Grand Jury and got an indictment, so I believe that he is not allowed to convene another grand jury in this case. Dr. Simon is not a Republican member of Congress, even though he owns guns.

A true believer like Berberian will never admit that he was wrong. From marinij.com:

The district attorney contended he had proceeded appropriately and
honorably. “I disagree with the court’s analysis of the record,” he
said, adding the jury was aware Osenton had trouble recalling events. He
asserted that the weapons collection was a relevant detail, as was
Simon’s “victimization” state of mind.

Actual lawyers may disagree. If there are other ways for DA Berberian to prosecute Dr. Simon, please let us know about them.

On a procedural note, I wonder how long it will take Dr. Simon to have his collection returned. It may be worth many tens of thousands of dollars. He is 71 years old.

In another case in California, where no crime was committed, the police refused to return 17 guns for three years, even though there were two court orders requiring them to do so. The police had most of the guns destroyed. A lawsuit resulted in a settlement of $30,000 for the destroyed firearms.

Based on witness statements, police believe there was an altercation in the backyard and the victim pulled out a gun. One of the males got into a physical fight with the the victim. The other male retrieved the handgun and shot the victim in the head, perhaps multiple times.

Police brought both males in for questioning, but they were released as police now might consider the incident an act of self-defense, Tuttle said. One of the males involved called police.More Here

Monday, June 22, 2015

A Milwaukee man told a car burglar to stop stealing the car radio. When the burglar pointed a gun at the car owner, who drew his own pistol and shot the burglar. A suspect with a gunshot wound was arrested at a local hospital. Wisn.com has a video report.

UK: A mother and her four children are fighting for their lives after being mowed down by a car 'doing 100mph' as they strolled to the park.

Five ambulances and an air ambulance rushed to Grove Lane in Handsworth, Birmingham, following the horrific collision at 12.05pm today.

Paramedics found a woman in her 30s, a four-year-old boy, a seven-year-old girl, a 12-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy had been hit by a grey Seat Leon.

Witnesses said the two youngest children were sent flying '20 to 30 metres down the road' due to the force of the impact as the family crossed the road.

Police have arrested a 35-year-old man on suspicion of dangerous driving.

A West Midlands Ambulance Service spokesman said the youngsters were taken to Birmingham Childrens' Hospital, where their conditions are described as life-threatening.

He said: 'Crews arrived to find a car that had been in collision with a group of pedestrians.

'Five pedestrians were injured in the collision; a girl believed to be seven years old suffered serious head injuries and went into cardiac arrest at the scene. Advanced life support was carried out by medics.

'A boy, believed to be four years old, suffered serious head injuries and was resuscitated by medics at the scene after he stopped breathing for a short time.'

He added: 'A woman in her 30's suffered serious head and pelvic injuries in the crash. She received emergency treatment at the scene from medics and was transferred to Queen Elizabeth Hospital Major Trauma Unit for further emergency treatment.

'A girl, believed to be 12 years old, suffered serious head injuries and also back injuries. She also received emergency treatment at the scene by medics to stabilise her condition.

David Codrea is a pillar of freedom fighters and Second Amendment supporters. He and Mike Vanderbough broke the Fast and Furious scandal of the Obama administration encouraging the running of guns into Mexico. He has numerous awards from the Second Amendment Foundation, the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and even from Soldier of Fortune magazine. I consider David to be a role model, and I am proud to call him a colleague.

It is with mixed feelings that I report on his parting of the ways with Examiner.com.

I read many columns that David wrote as the Gun Rights Examiner. His column was a ground breaking example at Examiner.com that inspired many local gun rights examiners such as Dave Workman, Liston Matthews, Steve D. Jones, Kurt Hofmann, John Longenecker, and others. He engendered an army of gun rights examiners that did tremendous work in reporting what the old media refused to report. But the Examiner vehicle had intrinsic problems.

It was always loaded down with pop-ups, ads, and took enormous bandwidth to view easily. I hear rumors that the owners were constantly reducing the rates that they had agreed to pay writers. I found the format irritating and I suffered with it only because of David Codrea and the writers that he inspired.

Now I have learned that David was suffering with the Examiner management as well. Just a couple of weeks ago, David and Examiner.com parted ways. It was not an amiable departure. You can read what happened at the link. I am saddened that a tower of achievement such as David was treated so shabbily. I find myself disgusted that Examiner.com could not see what a valuable asset they are discarding. But I have faith that this will work to David's ultimate advantage. How is uncertain.

David is such a fountain of talent and integrity that I cannot help but believe that there is a special niche awaiting him, where his value will be known and rewarded. In much of the old media, lies and manipulation are rewarded. The ability to mislead is valued and supported.

I do not believe that is true of all the new media. The new media is much more transparent, much more responsive, and is undergoing tremendous change. Change involves difficulties and opportunities, and I am certain that David is experiencing some difficulties at this time. You might want to visit his waronguns blog, simply to leave a word or more of encouragement.

The war on the Constitution ultimately is a war on Truth itself. David is a mighty warrior who follows the truth, wherever it may lead. He will be an asset wherever he goes. Finding a way to pay the bills while following the truth is the challenge.

Another important consideration is whether gun control laws make it easier for a a repressive government to take over.

The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Mad Muslim uses a car to kill 3 and injure 34 in Austria.
Yesterday, President Obama gave a brief speech responding to the attack.
“We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again innocent
people were killed in part because somebody who wanted to inflict harm
had no trouble getting their hands on a car.”

A four-year-old boy is reported to be one of three people killed after an SUV ploughed into a crowd of people in Graz, Austria.

Another 34 people were injured in the attack, with six - including two children - said to be in a serious condition.

Eyewitnesses say the driver rammed into crowds at up to 90mph before he got out and began randomly stabbing bystanders, which included the elderly and policemen.

The three victims killed in the attack have been described as a 28-year-old Austrian man, a 25-year-old woman and a four-year-old boy.

The woman and boy were both killed as the driver ploughed through crowds on the main Herrengasse shopping street before reaching the city's main square.

The National Police Director, Josef Klamminger, said the man, who is believed to be a 26-year-old Austrian truck driver, was suffering from 'psychosis' related to 'family problems'.

Police director Klamminger added that the man was under a restraining order keeping him away from the home of his wife and two children, after a domestic violence report was filed against him last month.

The driver did not resist when he was arrested by the police - who say he acted alone - and they have no reason to believe it was an act of terrorism.

The busy square was hosting an event relating to the Austrian Formula One Grand Prix which is being held 80km away, in the Red Bull Ring in Spielberg, in Steiermark.

The city council released a statement which read: 'At 12pm there was an appalling incident in the centre of Graz, which has caused major alarm and left the city deeply shaken.'

Provincial Governor Hermann Schuetzenhoefer said at least one of his injured victims is in a critical condition.

He added: 'We are shocked and dismayed... there is no explanation and no excuse for this attack.

'We have much to do to ensure cohesion in our community, which has clearly become difficult for many people.'

German-language website Krone reported that the man arrested by police is of Bosnian origin.

The Truth About Guns has obtained the "Manifesto" of the Charleston Church active shooter. They have taken the courageous step of publishing it in its entirety. It reveals a mind twisted by racism, but the twisting is not all from racists who hate black people. From the manifesto:

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept
hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I
read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand
what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right.
But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on
White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day.
The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens.
There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I
was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very
wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while
hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

I followed and commented on the Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman case from the start, and anyone who researches it with an open mind will come to the conclusion that George Zimmerman was the victim. The Church Shooter came to the same conclusion. I will not use his name, because I believe that the copycat effect is real, and that many active shooters are produced because of the media's policy of making these twisted individuals into anti-heroes.

Racism breeds Racism. There is an awareness in the United States that black racism is a huge problem. In 2013, a Rasmussen poll showed that 37% of Americans thought that most blacks were racist, while only 15% thought that most Whites were racist. From rasmussenreports.com:

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans
are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone
survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the
same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The old media in the United States has, for generations, had the policy of minimizing black crime. The left has adopted the idea that black people cannot be racist by definition, as absurd as that is. When you deny reality, reality has a way of coming back to bite you. Fortunately, only 9% of Americans have accepted the mindnumbing concept that only white people can be racist:

Just nine percent (9%) think racism refers only to discrimination by white people against minorities.

No one can know exactly what caused the Charleston Church shooter to do his evil deed. But in his own mind, as related by his words, it was the disconnect between reality and what he had been taught in school and by the media that started the chain of events.

Many have noted that race relations in the United States have become worse during President Obama's time in office. Much of it stems from the President's perceived racism. He has been quick to blame a white person in any circumstance that involves a conflict between blacks and whites. He has fanned the flames of racial strife, and used the conflict to push his policy objectives.

No real "conversation about race" can take place in this country unless it is inclusive of racism that exists in people of all different colors. 37 percent of the population, including 31% of black people, consider "most blacks to be racist". That is a number that cannot be avoided.

Truth cannot be hidden from the majority of people anymore. The days when the old media could control the flow of the vast majority of information to the vast majority of people in the United States are gone. Could the Charleston Church shooting have been prevented if the old media had been truthful about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case? We will never know.

Preferential treatment of a minority group in the name of "fairness" has resulted in mass violence all over the world. The best scholarly study of this phenomena has been done by Thomas Sowell in his book "Preferential Policies" published in 1990.

Subscribe To Gun Watch

Background

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here (Backups here and here)

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat